Inbox: Both Sides of Gillnetting Issue

Tags:

This article is shameless propaganda [“Fisherman’s Wrath,” WW,
June 13, 2012]. First, the proposed ban on gill nets has nothing to do
with a social attack on blue-collar workers; it is an environmental
issue.

Gill nets
indiscriminately kill many of the fish that swim into them. This
includes endangered stocks of Columbia River salmon and steelhead....
What’s more, abandoned gill nets will continue to kill these endangered
fish indefinitely.

There was a time when
fish runs were strong enough in the Columbia to handle gillnetters.
That time, however, has long since expired. Banning gill nets in the
Columbia is an important and necessary step in restoring our wild runs.

Second, there are
substantially more working-class Oregonians—thousands more—who are sport
fishermen than commercial fishermen. “Class warfare?” Give me a break.
As an avid fisherman, I can say that most of my fellow sport fishermen
and women are working-class folks. Sportfishing provides affordable
opportunities for people of all income levels to enjoy our public lands
and waters.

I find it disheartening that WW has glorified private gillnetters who profit off a dwindling public resource and degrade the environment.

—“steelhead1”

Thanks for an insightful article. Greed under the guise of
conservation is an insult to the green movement and a death sentence
for family fishing businesses.

Sport fishermen kill
far more endangered or threatened Columbia River fish (all species) than
the commercial fishers.... Commercial family fishers are the only way
most of us will be able to enjoy the bounty that belongs to all.

Oregonians are not so gullible as to eliminate jobs and access when not a single listed fish will be saved.

—“Bruce B”

TAKING A LAWMAKER TO TASK

Regardless of whether there is criminal culpability, Rep.
[Matt] Wingard exercised an exceptional breach of trust by engaging in a
relationship with a subordinate employee [“A Violation of Trust?” WW, June 13, 2012].

Even worse, it does
not appear outside the realm of possibility that he hired her expressly
to seek a relationship. The outcome of the matter is exactly what one
would expect: The employer stays employed and the employee is out of
work.

Wingard appears to
have forgotten that he is a “representative.” I suppose we have long
left behind the days that we expect a higher ethical standard from our
elected officials. But it is precisely this type of behavior that has
eroded and continues to erode public confidence in our democracy.

The Republican caucus
should quickly discipline Wingard to demonstrate it is unacceptable to
engage in a sexual relationship with an employee. In doing so he has, at
a minimum, compromised his claim to a leadership post.

—“Responsible boss”

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR must include the author’s street address and phone number for verification. Letters must be 250 or fewer words. Submit to: 2220 NW Quimby St., Portland, OR 97210. Fax: (503) 243-1115, Email: mzusman@wweek.com